William ANDERSON, Settlement Change in Byzantine Galatia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Settlement Change in Byzantine Galatia: An Assessment of Finds from the General Survey of Central Anatolia William ANDERSON Victoria, Australia ABSTRACT Since 1986, extensive surveys have been conducted annually by Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology. The surveys cover a large area of central Turkey, within the provinces of Kırşehir, Ankara, Konya, and Aksaray, and to date, around a thousand sites have been recorded. Material collected from these sites forms a major resource of archaeological information for studying long-term settlement patterns in this region. In this study, sites dating from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods are assessed to investigate the nature and extent of settlement change at this time, and to consider how such trends inform understanding of the later phases of occupation at Kaman-Kalehöyük. INTRODUCTION aim was first to clarify the chronology of sites, dividing those of the Early Byzantine (c. AD 330-630) and Surface artefact surveys are an important method of Middle Byzantine (c. AD 630-1100) periods, and second, assessing long-term settlement across wide regions, and to consider their location and character, to observe combined with historical and environmental data, surface consistencies and differences between the two periods. finds allow for specific phases of settlement change to be The main task involved examining assemblages that appraised. In central Anatolia, a significant shift in the had been identified in the published survey reports and pattern of settlement occurred from the seventh century site database as containing Byzantine material, as well AD, when Persian, and later, Arab armies invaded large as some which had been listed as Roman and Ottoman. areas of Byzantine territory in the east Mediterranean, Having determined the approximate date and character and advanced into Asia Minor. Investigations of the of sites, their location, elevation and topography was seventh-century settlement shift have, until recently, assessed. focused on urban change, the transition from the Greco- Surveys have the advantage of being able to record Roman city of Late Antiquity to the fortified town of multi-period sites across large areas, are relatively the Byzantine era. However, archaeological surveys and inexpensive, and relatively non-destructive. However, environmental studies are increasingly yielding evidence there are a number of methodological limitations, for rural settlement trends, offering a more consistent not least the problem of identifying material, mostly view of the landscape as a whole. pottery, from widely-dispersed locations. Sites can This research approaches the question of Roman be approximately dated on the basis of diagnostic to Byzantine settlement shift through a preliminary potsherds – rims, bases and handles – but surface analysis of material collected on the general survey of pottery is often so fragmentary and degraded that central Anatolia (CAS). By examining these finds my identification through form is not always possible. 234 W. ANDERSON AAS XVII Moreover, many ceramics from the late- and post-Roman period are locally produced, with no equivalents from stratified excavations. Added to this general problem of identification is the regionally-specific issue that few settlements of the Byzantine period have been excavated in central Turkey, the closest to the survey region being Tavium to the north, and Pessinus and Amorium to the west. EARLY BYZANTINE SITES Early Byzantine sites are best identified by fine Fig.1 Red Slip Ware bowl from Çatal or Büyükteflek, Kırşehir ware pottery, primarily red-slipped wares (RSW) that province were mass-produced and widely circulated from the second to early seventh centuries AD (Hayes 1972). Production of RSW occurred at a number of coastal sites around the Mediterranean, but there were also some inland production centres, notably Sagalassos (Poblome 1999), and ‘imitations’ were made in several other parts of Asia Minor. The presence of RSW at a site indicates some level of Late Roman-Early Byzantine activity, but it is only when sherds from several different vessels are found, or in combination with other recognisably Byzantine material, that occupation can be confidently assigned. Being situated far from the coast and the major RSW production sites, this type of pottery is less common in central Anatolia than it is elsewhere, Fig.2 Rim of a dish with incised decoration from Eski however it was still present at several sites in the CAS Mandıra, Konya province region. As surface finds, RSW often survives only as tiny body sherds which are impossible to match with well- Mandıra (98-13) in Konya province (Fig.2). The top documented forms, and in just a few instances can sherds of the rim is decorated with incised wavy lines, which be given a more precise date than ‘Late Roman’. along with the rim’s form and fabric, are similar to One rare survival is an intact base and part body dishes excavated at Hierapolis (Pamukkale), identified as of a RSW bowl or dish, in the centre of which has been locally-produced fine wares dating from the sixth century scratched a cross, collected from Çatal, or Büyükteflek (Cottica 2000: 50, nos.17-19). (site 01-33) in Kırşehir province (Fig.1). The vessel is Coin finds are helpful for assessing site chronology made from fine, orange ‘Asia Minor fabric’ (5YR 8/8), in combination with retrieved pottery. Three coins were with few inclusions or voids, and has a fairly thick, among the assemblages examined. The earlier two, found darker red slip (2.5YR 5/8), with visible application at Gölcük (98-72) and Uçurdum (03-11) are small bronze marks. Its form, with slightly flared foot (diameter: issues of Constantius II, minted in Nicomedia, and dated 66mm), sunken belly, and thick body, resembles footed AD 351-355 (Kent 1981: 479, nos.96-98; 498, nos.104- bowls of the sixth century. Another distinctively Early 109). Both of these sites yielded RSW and other Late Byzantine sherd is the flat rim (diameter: 120mm) of a Roman pottery. The third coin, from Beşli Yeri (02- thin-walled vessel (fabric: 7.5YR 7/6), collected at Eski 158) near Kaman, is from the early seventh century, a 2008 Settlement Change in Byzantine Galatia 235 follis of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine, minted in with stabbing along them, a coiled handle, and a body Constantinople, and dated AD 612-614 (Hahn 1981: 223, sherd with stabbing and incised wavy lines. Uçurdum is nos.159a, 159c, 160b). close to the Early Byzantine station of Andrapa that lay By far the most common material collected on on the Pilgrim’s Road between Ankara and Parnassos surveys is coarse ware pottery. With the exception of (Belke and Restle 1984: 126). Hacınınağıl (92-41), transport amphorae, which have been well studied and Azak Kalesi (99-28) and Sütce Höyük (00-04) in Konya classified, it can be difficult to accurately identify Late province, are all sites with typically Early Byzantine Roman coarse wares. Coarse wares can often be assumed cooking and storage vessel sherds of oxidised fabrics to have been locally produced, however they were also and including flat rims with stabbing, body sherds transported considerable distances. Other than observing with incised straight and wavy lines, and pithos sherds similarities in fabrics from localised sites, a fabric type with applied strips with thumbing, characteristics that series is unlikely to be achieved when considering such a resemble coarse wares found in Early Byzantine contexts large area. There are some features of pottery production at Tavium (Gerber 2003) and Pessinus (Devos 2003). that were more common in Early Byzantine times, for As is regularly the case, the Early Byzantine sherds instance, coarse wares of this period from the Acropolis were often alongside Roman and Hellenistic pottery, at Pessinus were found to have oxidised cores, in contrast suggesting long-term habitation throughout classical to the reduced fabrics of the preceding era (Thoen 2003: antiquity. 83). The function and character of sites is difficult to Recognisable forms of Byzantine coarse ware accurately gauge on the basis of a few surface sherds, include arch-rimmed cooking pots, flat-rimmed basins but there are often clues about a site’s status, from the and pithoi, flat handles, and external and internal composition of the assemblage and from the site itself. ribbing on the body, but these are not always enough to Large numbers of imported fine ware sherds are likely distinguish an assemblage as being Early Byzantine, as to signal a well-connected settlement with some level such features continued long into the medieval period. of prosperity, while assemblages consisting of mainly Decoration is one way in which coarse ware pottery can storage and transport vessels may be seen as places be at least designated Byzantine, although there was of agricultural activity. Some of the CAS sites have also considerable continuity in the surface treatment of architectural remains, such as Yapı (00-34) with its arch- cooking and storage vessels, both throughout and after shaped feature, Üçayak Kırşehir (01-18) where there are the Byzantine era. remains of a Middle Byzantine church with intact wall Early Byzantine coarse ware vessels can be broadly plaster, and Sütce Höyük (00-04), where the remains of divided between cooking and table wares, and thicker- city walls were observed. Although surface potsherds, walled pottery for storage and transport vessels, as even considered in their architectural context, only well as tiles and piping. The decoration on both thin allow for a basic level of site differentiation, the Early and thick-walled vessels features recurring techniques, Byzantine material suggests a diversity of site functions. particularly methods of incising the surface such as The predominence of storage vessels indicates however rouletting, combing, stabbing or gouging, and finger that the majority of sites had an agricultural purpose. impressing. Such decoration allows for pottery to be identified as Byzantine, but only when appearing in combination with fine wares or other chronological MIDDLE BYZANTINE SITES indicators can it be assigned to the Early or Middle period.